RFC: Evolution of the em driver

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Wed Oct 31 09:28:48 PDT 2007

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>For what it's worth, I agree with Scott.  I'd rather see a new and
>separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a "hacked up" em(4) driver
>trying to handle tons of IC revisions.  A good example of the insanity
>the latter causes is nve(4) vs. nfe(4).  :-)

<metoo>A separate driver is probably cleaner.</metoo>

I'll just make the comment that if a separate driver is written, there
needs to be a clear way for an end user to identify what driver is
needed/preferred for his chipset.  We already have cases like
re(4)/rl(4) and sym(4)/ncr(4) where some chips are supported by two
drivers - though generally only one driver fully supports the chip.
This sort of thing is confusing for end users.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20071031/532ae77a/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list